Digg/Buzz It Up

POLITICO 44

It’s hard for some Democrats to believe that the candidate running to replace Ted Kennedy is being attacked over health care reform — in one of the bluest states in the union, no less.

But Republican Scott Brown has got Democrats nervous — not just for his opponent Martha Coakley but about the fact that a loss in Massachusetts would be a body blow to Democratic reform efforts in Washington.

Republicans are watching public approval of reform continue to tank while their candidates’ poll numbers rise. And they still view the bill’s Medicare cuts, tax increases and lack of transparency as key to a 2010 message that voters should bring GOP checks and balances to a Democratic-run Washington.

Democrats, meanwhile, continue to argue that once the legislating is done, the party will be able to sell reform’s benefits, including coverage for more than 30 million Americans, better prescription drug coverage for seniors and tighter controls on insurance companies.

Brown’s danger to health reform is more than just his messaging — he’s hoping to become the “41st vote” to scuttle a health reform bill in the Senate by denying Democrats their 60-vote majority.

It’s not that simple. Even if he manages to upset Coakley — despite some polls showing her with a double-digit lead — Democrats could drag out seating Brown, thanks to a 15-day waiting period to send results to the secretary of state and, then, no deadline for state officials to formally declare a winner.

And even if Democrats were unable to negotiate a final bill before Brown was seated, they’d have a last resort: Democrats could try to pass the Senate bill through the House with no changes, sending it straight to President Barack Obama’s desk.

But Brown’s threat to health reform is in some ways larger. He’s showing how Republicans can run against reform — something sure to play out in other high-profile campaigns this fall, such as those of Reps. Frank Kratovil Jr. (D-Md.) and John Adler (D-N.J.), along with Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) and Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).

Voting against the bill may not be enough to inoculate Democrats from attack.

Rep. Walt Minnick (D-Idaho) said he did four town halls over the holiday recess. “That was the consistent theme: strong opposition based on talk radio talking points,” said Minnick, who voted no on the bill. He took straw polls at each event, and found “all of [the] audiences have been opposed to the president’s proposal, save one.”

“Most of my audiences are strongly opposed to it. The administration simply didn’t get through, certainly in more rural areas. The message just didn’t get through because there’s neither an understanding nor support for it in vast swaths of my district. Heck, there’s no support for it in any place.”

Rep. Jason Altmire (D-Pa.) also voted no. He said he feels comfortable defending his vote. “I think people have heard what the president has to say and what the political leaders have to say, but it’s up to me as a representative to try and explain what my views are and make the best decision I can,” he said. “I think there’s a lot of confusion about what’s in the bill, and I’m comfortable explaining it.”

Kratovil, too, voted no, but Republican challenger state Sen. Andy Harris is still using it against him, hitting Kravotil on two fronts: perceived dithering and the public option.

“They are frustrated with the congressman that he doesn’t know where he stands on an issue as important as health care,” Harris said. “If the congressman agreed with their philosophy, the congressman would have said months ago, ... ‘I am opposed to it.’”

Kratovil has told media outlets that the public option was not the make-or-break issue for him. That, Harris said, is out of sync with the district.

Kratovil’s main reason for voting against the bill was the cost, said Kevin Lawlor, his campaign spokesman. “It was too expensive overall, and he didn’t believe it was paid for.”

It’s not that simple. Even if he upsets Coakley – despite some polls showing her with a double-digit lead – Democrats could drag out seating Brown, thanks to a 15-day waiting period to send results to the Secretary of State, and then no deadline for state officials to formally declare a winner.

If they refused to seat Brown if he won, how would Harry Reid and Dick Durbin explain their agreeing to seat Roland Burris without the Secretary of State of Illinois even issuing a Certification??

Brown is an excellent leader, especially compare to the liberal lap dog Coakley. If he loses, he should move to another state, then we need to start fencing off the northeast, since they have no ethics, morales,or decency. I loved his (Brown's) comment responding to the traitor Gergin. "This is not Kennedy's seat, nor the Democrats' seat. Its the people of Mass seat".

By the way, is the media asking who bought Coakley's wardrobe, or is she doing her own makeup? Is she married or a lesbo? Have we dug into the lifes of her children, if any? Oh, I am sorry that is just another double standard afforded Republican females.

misspelling mass and running for Senate? On her first attack ad? Also saying that terrorists in Afganistan are "gone" despite the CIA suicide bombing? Does she watch the news at all or is just completely ideologically blind? Article please.

Coakley, via TPM (see bottom for link)

Gergen asked Coakley how it's possible to succeed in Afghanistan without the surge -- and Coakley gave a very risky answer for a politician. "I'm not sure there is a way to succeed," said Coakley. She explained that her concern was with the definition of the very mission there:

"If we went in because we decided the Taliban was giving harbor to terrorists, we supported that, I supported that. They're gone."

If Brown misspelled Mass, would you be covering this or not? Coakley has now pulled the ad in shame - care to report that?

This is just too good to add as an update to my earlier Coakley post. Via Jammie Wearing Fool, MassLive pays attention to that disclaimer message at the end of a Martha Coakley ad, and notices a Dan Quayle moment:

On the heels of last night’s final debate between Martha Coakley, Scott Brown and Joseph L. Kennedy, Coakley released a new ad attacking Scott Brown — an aggressive turn that many observers have thought was long overdue.

However the ad’s message might get lost by a spelling gaffe that appears in the ad’s closing seconds. In the fine print appearing at the bottom of the screen, the ad reads:

Paid for by Massachusettes Democratic Party and Authorized by Martha Coakley for Senate. Approved by Martha Coakley.

Close observers will notice that there is an extra ‘E’ tacked onto the end of ‘Massachusetts. It’s a trivial oversight, for sure, but you can bet that the jokes and jabs the typo will inspire will blunt at least some of the impact of the ad.

Here’s the screenshot:

And just to make clear, this came from Coakley’s own YouTube channel — see upper right of this screencap:

Maybe Coakley ought to know how to spell her state’s name before asking voters there to send her to Washington to represent them. At the very least, it’s an answer to Democratic zingers about Dan Quayle, who managed to spell Indiana correctly even if misspelling potato on an infamous occasion.

Update: Coakley has pulled the video — which makes the screen-cap all that more valuable.

So, the Democrats are going to pass a bill that they KNOW is awful - so THEY will look better? First of all - the best thing they could do is stop right now - work in a bi-partisan manner - and pass a bill that is good for America - not good for the politicians, Pharma and Insurance. These people are unbelievably stupid.

The American people, regardless of political affiliation, are totally disgusted by this Congress. The anger in this Country is palpable.

Democrats, meanwhile, continue to argue that once the legislating is done the party will be able to sell reform’s benefits, including coverage for more than 30 million Americans, better prescription drug coverage for seniors and tighter controls on insurance companies.

Progressives aren't going to be fooled by the piece of garbage that's emerging from Congress.

The Democrats losing the governors race in Virginia was somewhat understandable. Virginia afterall has become a purple state, and although Obama won there by about 7%, Republican hopeful Deeds won by 15%. Then there was New Jersey. Jon Corzine of Goldman Sachs fame and big time Liberal Democrat lost the governorship. He had Barry and every other Democrat of modest fame campaigning on his behalf. New Jersey, well that's been a blue state for quite some time. Hell, ever Toricelli won there before he was indicted of course. Now let's look at Massachusettes where Democrats out number Republicans 3 to 1. Some polls have Coakley with a 15 point advantage. Some polls have it much tighter than that, PPP comes to mind. If by some chance Brown does prevail in Massachusettes, the bluest of the blue states, shock waves will be felt in Washington till 2012.

True that. Even if Scott Brown does not win, it would automatically mean a win for the Republicans since the race is neck and neck. Massachusetts is a die-hard liberal state. Probably the most liberal.